BER Rating not compliant with Building Regs

Will23

folks,

not sure if i have the right forum, please move if not.

I live in an apartment built in 2005 (planning 2003), and it has been bloody freezing lately.

As i understand it, houses/apartments built in that era should be a minimum C1 to be compliant with Building Regs Part L. Can anyone clarify if that is correct?

I have asked for the BER and it is significantly worse than a C1.

I know this crap was rife during the boom, but its still a pain. Anyone have any view on what one might do to get the problem resolved. The contractor is liable for latent defects for 12 years (under seal)

thanks.

MOTM

There was no BER in place when that apartment was built, but if there was (noting that it would probably have had to apply to 2002 regs) it might've been expected as a D2 or E2 if electrically heated:

http://www.seai.ie/Your_Building/BER/Your_Guide_to_Building_Energy_Rating.pdf

Maybe check with your local building control officer (works with city/county council) for advice on what to do.

sydthebeat

Will23 wrote: »

folks,

not sure if i have the right forum, please move if not.

I live in an apartment built in 2005 (planning 2003), and it has been bloody freezing lately.

As i understand it, houses/apartments built in that era should be a minimum C1 to be compliant with Building Regs Part L. Can anyone clarify if that is correct?

I have asked for the BER and it is significantly worse than a C1.

I know this crap was rife during the boom, but its still a pain. Anyone have any view on what one might do to get the problem resolved. The contractor is liable for latent defects for 12 years (under seal)

thanks.

i know town houses built in 2006 to regs that had G ratings.... so theres no minimum rating from that period.

you say that the apartment is freezing, but you havent said how its heated or what you are spending to heat it.

i would advise you to get an competent assessor to do a thermal imaging survey with a blower door test....

BigFatGiant

The BER you received should also give figures for U-Values (max elemental u-values) which must comply with the relevant Building regulation, in this case Technical Guidance Doc L 2002. If the u-values of the windows, walls, etc are too high and they don't comply with this technical guidance document then the builder was in breach of building regulations.

sydthebeat

BigFatGiant wrote: »

The BER you received should also give figures for U-Values (max elemental u-values) which must comply with the relevant Building regulation, in this case Technical Guidance Doc L 2002. If the u-values of the windows, walls, etc are too high and they don't comply with this technical guidance document then the builder was in breach of building regulations.

not sure where you are getting that from

firstly, any ber certificate does not show elemental u values.

secondly, the DEAP software only shows compliance with 2005, 2008 and 2011 regs.

BigFatGiant

sydthebeat wrote: »

not sure where you are getting that from

firstly, any ber certificate does not show elemental u values.

secondly, the DEAP software only shows compliance with 2005, 2008 and 2011 regs.

Apologies what I meant is that the DEAP software can give these values. If they are requested from the Assessor they can be then checked against 2002 regs for compliance.

sydthebeat

BigFatGiant wrote: »

Apologies what I meant is that the DEAP software can give these values. If they are requested from the Assessor they can be then checked against 2002 regs for compliance.

not using DEAP.

The assessor can offer no more than than the usual cert of compliance can add.

DEAP offers worse U Values as default than 2002 regs, so it would never actually show compliance for 2002 regs by calculation.

for example, minimum elemental u value for a wall in 2002 age band regulations is 0.27
DEAP, for this age band, offers a default u value of 0.37 (2005 onwards)

BigFatGiant

sydthebeat wrote: »

not using DEAP.

The assessor can offer no more than than the usual cert of compliance can add.

DEAP offers worse U Values as default than 2002 regs, so it would never actually show compliance for 2002 regs by calculation.

for example, minimum elemental u value for a wall in 2002 age band regulations is 0.27
DEAP, for this age band, offers a default u value of 0.37 (2005 onwards)

No not using DEAP. They would have to be checked manually against 2002 regs. U - Values might be actual calculated and not default figures depending on what information/drawings was available to the assessor. If they have used default figures then the BER may have no real relevance to what is actually built anyway.

BostonB

Will23 wrote: »

...The contractor is liable for latent defects for 12 years (under seal)
..

Whats that?

sydthebeat

BigFatGiant wrote: »

No not using DEAP. They would have to be checked manually against 2002 regs. U - Values might be actual calculated and not default figures depending on what information/drawings was available to the assessor. If they have used default figures then the BER may have no real relevance to what is actually built anyway.

so what your saying is checking for compliance with part L 2002 will have nothing to do with DEAP or the BER certification system?

also, unless the assessor also has Professional Indemnity insurance to offer opinions on compliance, theres no point in them doing anything.
Trying to introduce, and prove legal negligence at this stage, 7 years after the build, where a cert of compliance probably already exists would be putting the client down a long and, most probably, fruitless road at this stage.

thirdly, if you are going to the rounds of an INTRUSIVE survey then

i would advise you to get an competent assessor to do a thermal imaging survey with a blower door test....

sydthebeat

Will23 wrote: »

The contractor is liable for latent defects for 12 years (under seal)

.

i am in no way an expert on this, but i have seen it reported, and our *ahem* glorious minister for environment has repeatedly referred to a "a time limit of five years after a building has been completed during which an enforcement notice may be served by a local building control authority."


whether a breach of buildings could honestly be consider a "latent defect" is also another whole argument... one which i would come down on the side that its not a latent defect.

Will23

folks,

firstly thanks for all the responses!

I am in the profession myself so i have a fair idea of what im talking about and looking for. It appears as though the buildnig was constructed to the 2002 regs and as such there is no obligation to meet a min standard using the BER rating system. This is useful to have clarified.

I have no way to check the elemental U-Values without an invasive survey and air tightness test, which im not going to complete.

with regard the latents defect period, if the works were signed under seal, the contractor is legally responsible for all latent defects, including omissions and all non-compliance issues - he would not have completed the terms of the contractor for which he has signed up to. It would take legal action to enforce, unless there happened to be retention still outstanding, but that for anyother day and another thread!

thanks again folks.

Will.